When two talented key members of a management team blew up at each other during a staff meeting, the CEO called me to see if I could help resolve the conflict. It had been brewing for some time, and the CEO was over it. “I hate conflict,” he said. “I want to stop this and move on.”
He isn’t alone; many in leadership roles dislike conflict. We either avoid it or look for prompt resolution. But in doing this, we drain away powerful opportunities for growth and change.
“I’m embarrassed I had to call,” he said as we discussed the situation. His embarrassment is understandable: We are socialized toward a negative view of conflict. From an early age, we are instructed to stop arguing, to not fight, to do what it takes to get along. “We never argue” is worn as a badge of accomplishment, and when conflict does occur, we blame ourselves or others and immediately seek to quash it.
Conflict is neither right nor wrong
Put people together — especially smart, talented managers who have strong opinions — and you will have conflict. It is a natural part of human relationships and should be expected in organizations that want to be the best. “But it’s so disturbing,” the CEO said.
Conflict is frequently experienced as negative because it’s so full of energy and juice. About 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed that conflict or strife is the father of everything: When things bang together, new stuff is created. This is true in both the natural world and in human relationships. I explained that a collision of opposites, a dissatisfaction, a roadblock, an argument, a rejection of the status quo, an incompatibility with the way things are — all ignite the fires of change.
“Yeah, but change isn’t always good,” the CEO fired back. He’s right. Unmitigated conflict can result in everything from disruptions to world wars.
So we began addressing his managers’ blow-up using a process adapted from the work of John Paul Lederach, a scholar at the Joan Kroc Institute of Conflict Studies at the University of Notre Dame. We started with several Lederach-inspired assumptions:
- Conflict is a natural part of human relationships
- Conflict has meaning beyond its immediate episode (the blow-up is never the whole story)
- Energy in conflict can illuminate opportunities and threats and power the engine of change
With these assumptions providing a new view of the conflict, the CEO and I set a goal of taking the time to see what the conflict could reveal. We set some ground rules that minimized the destructive impact on the individuals in and around the conflict and began to facilitate a dialogue that did not hide their strong emotions and passionate opinions. We listened for what the conflict revealed about the structure and culture of the organization. Several times during the numerous meetings, we had to stop ourselves from jumping toward simple resolutions and sit back and hold the conflict and all its noisy, unpleasant antagonism. Conflict needs a patient hearing.
The process was slow. But in the end, the CEO confessed to being grateful for “a fight between his best managers.” Instead of telling them to shut up and behave, the CEO learned that beneath the episodes of conflict, the organization and his vision of the future had stagnated. He was sending mixed messages to his team, and two of his eager, talented, high-energy managers were simply reflecting back his mixed messages in the form of their ongoing conflict. The CEO’s willingness to see beyond resolution allowed him to transform conflict into a powerful engine of change.
Want more information about using conflict to bring about change? Pick up a copy of John Paul Lederach’s “The Little Book of Conflict Transformation.”
